Cougars Gone Wild
You'd think young women would be the most sex-mad. Well, not according to "the first study to examine changes in women's reproductive behavior across the life-cycle as a function of an evolved psychological adaptation." Yes, according to this study, it seems girls with aging eggs have more fun.

This very interesting study -- published in Personality and Individual Differences, and sloppily and incorrectly reported in various newspapers and on blogs -- is by University of Texas' Judith A. Easton, Jaime C. Confer, Cari D. Goetz and David M. Buss.

As TIME's John Cloud writes, their research suggests evolutionary forces push women to be more sexual -- and in some unexpected ways -- with women who'd passed their peak fertility years but weren't yet in menopause the most sexually active, with the most active sexual fantasy lives:

Buss, Easton and their colleagues found that women in their 30s and early 40s are significantly more sexual than younger women. Women ages 27 through 45 report not only having more sexual fantasies (and more intense sexual fantasies) than women ages 18 through 26; the older women also report having more sex, period. And they are more willing than younger women to have casual sex, even one-night stands. In other words, despite the girls-gone-wild image of promiscuous college women, it is women in their middle years who are America's most sexually industrious.

By contrast, men's sexual interest and output, usually measured by reported number of orgasms per week, peaks in the teen years and then settles to a steady level (an average of three orgasms per week) for most of their lives. As I pointed out in March, most men remain sexually active into their 70s. According to the new study, as well as the one I wrote about in March, women's sexual ardor declines precipitously after menopause.

Why would women be more sexually active in their middle years than in their teens and 20s? Buss and his students say evolution has encouraged women to be more sexually active as their fertility begins to decline and as menopause approaches.

Here's how their theory works:

Our female ancestors would have grown accustomed to watching many of their children -- perhaps as many as half -- die of various diseases, starvation, warfare and so on before being able to have kids of their own. This trauma left a psychological imprint to bear as many children as possible. Becoming pregnant is much easier for women and girls in their teens and early 20s -- so much easier that they need not spend much time having sex.

However, after the mid-20s, the lizard-brain impulse to have more kids faces a stark reality: it's harder and harder to get pregnant as a woman's remaining eggs age. And so women in their middle years respond by seeking more and more sex.

An interesting passage from the study, which I have, and have read: "Contrary to our prediction, women in a relationship classified as reproduction expediting did not fantasize more about someone other than their current romantic partner, but instead equally fantasized about their current romantic partner and other individuals. Women with high fertility did fantasize more about their current partner than other individuals, although this was not the case for menopausal women." (As they wrote earlier, "Menopausal women are no longer able to conceive, and therefore their psychology should not function to increase opportunities for conception.")

(Some caveats: study uses self-reported sex data [I always discount this because people lie about sex], and subjects were university students and self-selected participants off a Craigslist ad, where, as Cloud pointed out, people go seeking hookups. They also didn't control for hormonal birth control "which may also affect sexual motivations and behaviors.")

UPDATE: David Buss weighs in (in an e-mail exchange with me, which he gave me permission to publish) with a more nuanced view on self-reported sex data. (I wrote back to him to ask if I'd gotten the blog item right -- because I'd rather admit that I'm wrong and correct what I've published than look like I know it all...a problem with far too many reporters out there, I think). Buss writes:

In my judgment, you can't simply discount self-report studies, though, for several reasons. Yes, of course people lie, but one has to ask whether that distorts the findings in ways that produce artifactual results. Take affairs. Self-reports will surely underestimate the incidence of affairs, so if the goal is to obtain precise percentages of affairs, the findings will be misleadingly low. But that simply means that self-reported affairs are lower-bound estimates of actual rates. And there is no reason to doubt that the men and women differ in affair rate, as the self-reports reveal.

Second, in many cases in which self-reports have been able to be verified by independent data sources, such as observers, friends, or spouses, or by demographic or laboratory data, the results almost always confirm the self-reports. Example: my 37 culture study of mate preferences found that men expressed a preference for younger women, and women expressed a preference for older men [as a spouse]. Demographic data confirm that the average actual age differences between brides and grooms correspond almost precisely to the self-reported preferences.

Third, for some sexual topics, self-reports are the ONLY legitimate data source. Sexual fantasies are a prime example.

Yes, you always want to try to verify scientific findings with more than one method or data source. But there's not reason to believe that self-reports should simply be dismissed because some people sometimes lie.

By the way, Judith A. Easton was the lead author and Jaime C. Confer was the second author, and Buss contributed to the writing. I'm so shocked at how, in story after story, "reporters" said Buss wrote the study, or quoted him as if they'd actually interviewed him (for example, Nick Collins, in the Telegraph/UK), who just pulled bits out of the study and made it look as if he'd interviewed Buss. (On the bright side, this suggests that Collins actually read the study instead of simply reporting what the UT press release said.)

Comments

I certainly hope this is right - I have a blind date lined up with a 40yr old next week (whom I am reliably informed is very cute) - and I'm not quite out of the male peak yet even if I'm getting close. Wish me luck people :)

Posted by: Ltw
at July 11, 2010 12:52 AM

I think another contributing factor, at least until recently, is that many women were raised with idea of sex being fun is wrong.

It takes them several years to realize that "Hey, I enjoy it!" is actually ok.

Posted by: Jim P.
at July 11, 2010 6:55 AM

Amy, when will we see a new menu option on your website to meet these highly sexualized women? I know it might be tough on me, but I'm willing to selflessly donate myself to fulfill their needs.

I prefer 5'6" or taller, a darker complexion, and great legs. Just let me know where to register!

This makes sense, as it better explains the way that I've seen women behave. Other popular descriptions of women's sexual behavior over time have never seemed realistic to me. One being that women are just like men and so are hypersexual when younger. The other that they reach their peak much later and that this persists. There'a a version of this that's popularized in women's media which holds that women over 30 are more sexual than men, and their sex drive actually grows as they get older. The fact that post meno women don't seem to have any sex drive at all doesn't factor.

Also the increased tendency to dream about other men is helpful to know. Something that I've encounted, and heard about through friends, is wive and girlfriend who jump to the conclusion that the relationship is over because they've had dreams about other men. Women are often very superstitious in this way. They'll leave because they think that they'd never dream about anyone else if they were 'really truly happy'.

Posted by: Mac Attack
at July 11, 2010 7:56 AM

Once again science tells us what we already know.

Posted by: Mike Hunter
at July 11, 2010 8:13 AM

It makes evolutionary sense -- last at-bat, last chance to hit a home run. But Jim P's point should not be discounted. Older women are better able to shake off inhibitions, but also, since they have had more experience with men, they have more confidence that they can choose partners who won't get them pregnant and then split.

Posted by: Cousin Dave
at July 11, 2010 8:16 AM

My sex drive increased tremendously in my early 30's. It also happened to be when I left my ex-husband. I don't know the evolutionary reasons. I just know I felt good about myself and what I wanted. I had less inhibitions and my mother's voice in my head telling me it was shameful to enjoy sex was gone. One night stands were never my thing but I did engage in a few casual flings and experimented with a few forbidden fantasies and found that I really loved sex!

Posted by: Kristen
at July 11, 2010 9:54 AM

so... is this for single women? After all, there is this myth that women who are long married eventually become disinterested in having any fun at all... I'm pretty sure I've heard that somewhere. Maybe it was from every married guy I've ever known, including myself. It actually makes sense in that way that you don't need to try anymore if you are off the market, but it would also seem to indicate that the ladies weren't that interested to start with...

Yeah, not data, what I have seen a lot on the web is simple blaming it on loss of libido in married women for various reasons [kids, age, lack of interest] but is there a difference if you aren't or are no longer married?

Dan Savage has been talking it up, it's kind of an alternate theory on our sexual roots.

Posted by: Sam
at July 11, 2010 11:07 AM

If my second wife goes this way she'll kill somebody. She was fit and demanding at 20, and last time I heard, she was still fit. At 39.

Posted by: Radwaste
at July 11, 2010 11:26 AM

I have the book -- the guy has some points, but also misrepresents stuff. I'm working day and night on my next book, and I'm not really interested in taking it apart, but I'll post links when somebody does - and I'm sure someone will, as they did with Buller's distortions. The author has a passage criticizing me and asked if I wanted it removed from the book, which I consider pandering intellectual dishonesty. I told him to leave it in.

You think that's something, well let me tell you, even older women may be left with nothing but fantasies, but the fantasies can be great. It is disturbing however, to realize now that my sweet grandmother may have been having fantasies about Cary Grant or Clark Gable when I thought the main pleasures in her life had been reduced to eating butter pecan ice cream and reading Agatha Christie mysteries.

Posted by: Mary
at July 11, 2010 1:05 PM

I'd be interested to know how the comparisons performed in this study are applied - i.e. are women broken into single vs couples groups. Like Swiss Army mentions, my experience and that of any man I've ever spoken to on the subject, is that a woman's sex drive drops precipitously once she has a commitment. So is there a relative increase in their 30's? I find it hard to believe that it's higher among women in relationships, unless single women in their 30's just have no sex drive at all.

Posted by: Jamie Farr
at July 11, 2010 1:57 PM

I'm still trying to wrap my head around maen on average setteling for 3 orgasms a week.

Now does that figure include masterbation? Because even taking into account 'lower' self reported numbers that figure seems way too small to me

Posted by: lujlp
at July 11, 2010 1:59 PM

Sometimes it's the husband who loses interest in sex after commitment. Within months after we got married, my husband lost interest in sex. We haven't had sex in 14 years, and not because *I* didn't want to. I just got tired of begging and being rejected 9 times out of 10. Pretty much stayed together for the sake of the kid and for financial reasons.

Posted by: DragonHawk
at July 11, 2010 4:27 PM

Kind of funny how it's the opposite with men. I guess that's why they like 'em so young.

"It is disturbing however, to realize now that my sweet grandmother may have been having fantasies about Cary Grant or Clark Gable"...

There's a page or so in "The Wicker Man" (the book, not the crappy remake of a decent movie) about a couple of old ladies and their rocking chair which apparently has a dildo built onto it.

It ain't over til it's over.

Posted by: Pricklypear
at July 11, 2010 5:27 PM

I've put the book on hold at the library (Sex at Dawn), because Dan Savage mentioned it in his column. I'm just curious what the 2 authors have to say.

I'm 51, finished with menopause about 2 years ago and still have a very strong sex drive. I attribute it to feeling very good about the way I look and taking care of my health. I'm very fit and I love attention from men, which I get. I think the way to keep men interested in sex is to keep the mystery going, keep them chasing you.

Posted by: Chrissy
at July 11, 2010 5:28 PM

My sex drive is still as strong now (I'm in my thirties) as it was when I was in my teens. I need it at least every other day.

Otherwise I turn into one pissy bitch. Even more so than I usually am.

Posted by: Jen Wading
at July 11, 2010 6:16 PM

Isn't this thread forgetting about menopause, not to mention that even though women may have an appetite for sex after 40 and have lost their inhabitations, they also need to look in the mirror. Last time I checked, most men want a firm and younger women. Just saying...

Posted by: The Spoiler
at July 11, 2010 6:26 PM

"Like Swiss Army mentions, my experience and that of any man I've ever spoken to on the subject, is that a woman's sex drive drops precipitously once she has a commitment."

That's because the courtship rituals that women respond to usually stop after commitment. A husband thinks he can just throw off his dirty socks, climb into bed, and she should be immediately hot for him. We women need to be seduced, emotionally and physically, and far too many men stop that after marriage.

I, too, wonder how many of these cougars are suddenly free and single and enjoying being courted again. There should be a breakdown. It's not really fair to compare the sex drive of a 30 yr old who has 2 little kids with a 42 yr old, whose kids are out of the house, so she's free to tango.

Posted by: lovelysoul
at July 11, 2010 6:46 PM

I'm only 30 right now, but I want sex pretty much everyday, often several times a day. Unfortunately for me, SO doesn't. I only get it 2-3 says out of the week. I think part if it us because of our work schedules, but this didn't start happening until we officially moved in together so I don't know why it changed. I joked to him the other day when he was "too tired" when I got home from work that I was going to start sneaking Viagra into his food. LOL

Posted by: BunnyGirl
at July 11, 2010 11:10 PM

I think several times a day is a very high sex drive, particularly for a woman. This kind of sexual incompatibility can really be tough on a relationship.

I personally would rather have great sex 3 times a week that just have a lot of sex daily, so your SO would be a perfect match for me. There's nothing wrong with him, but he may not be right for you in this regard. Making him feel inadequate with little viagra jokes isn't going to help matters.

Posted by: lovelysoul
at July 12, 2010 6:18 AM

Hey Amy,

You write: "The author has a passage criticizing me and asked if I wanted it removed from the book, which I consider pandering intellectual dishonesty. I told him to leave it in."

As a courtesy to you, I sent you an email containing the paragraph in which we quote you. I don't remember ever offering to remove it (and after a quick search of old emails, I don't see any such offer). But maybe I did. The fact is, there are unlimited expressions of the EP party line you so faithfully adhere to, so quoting you (or Buss or Symons or Pinker) isn't a big deal one way or the other. As you know, I only showed the text to you because we have a common friend.

To call this "pandering intellectual dishonesty" seems a bit rich. Or are you being ironic?

I also don't adhere to any party line -- and isn't it possible that your biggest issue is that you aren't invited to the party/respected in the way a David Buss is?

I just criticized research he did for using sexually self-reported data, university students, and Craigslist respondents. I'm reading Dutton and Aron and others now and I'm shocked at how pitifully small the sample size was on the shaky bridge study. To paint me as some credulous writer is exactly wrong, but I did not take you up on your offer. It's probably in the one where you offered to send me a copy of the book.

Unfortunately, I don't have time to go through and critique your work now. Or go back through old e-mails, but I sure wouldn't make something like this up.

Oh, and P.S. I stand firmly behind our mutual friend's research even though he is knocked by the establishment in his arena. I don't judge research or work based on who's popular or accepted or even liked.

I'm assuming that men's fertility is different than women's. Otherwise, middle aged men and women would be going crazy on each other in the bedroom and on the kitchen floor and most likely in the hallway.

Posted by: Jason S.
at July 12, 2010 8:09 AM

Revelations on the Telegraph's standards for journalism. Their response to my complaint about the Buss "quote" -- taken from the study, which was largely written by Judith A. Easton and Jaime C. Confer:

12 July 2010
Dear Ms Alkon,
I am writing in response to your email concerning the article about 'Women enjoy best sex as they approach 40' that appeared in the Telegraph.
The quotes used in the article came from another British newspaper, the Daily Mail and we took the 'quotes' made by David Buss directly. It is not unusual in the media to take quotes from another publication and we did state this in the article, but may I apologise for any confusion that has been made. Nicks Collins is an extremely good reporter and a credit to the Telegraph.
I would like to thank you for taking the time and trouble to write to us on this matter, we appreciate your readership and value your comments.
Yours sincerely,
Andy King
Editorial Information Assistant

My response:

The quotes by Buss were not attributed to the Daily Mail (dishonest to not credit them if they were taken from there), and in fact, David Buss did not make them. The study was written by Judith A. Easton and Jaime C. Confer.

Since the Daily Mail is clearly not practicing responsible journalism, perhaps it's best to not copy out of their pages? And if one is doing a copy job, shouldn't attribution of where the copying comes from be part of the story?

Did an editor actually see my remarks? Please forward this to him or her. Thanks, -Amy Alkon, syndicated columnist, USA

PS As an editorial assistant, perhaps hoping to write for papers, please know that these are not good standards of journalism that are being practiced.

Well, I just looked back at the email where I offered to send you a book, and all I can find there is a quick critique of the Kanazawa argument you'd quoted and an invitation to martinis next time I was in L.A.:

"Whether you end up being convinced by our argument or not, I'm sure you'll find it an interesting read. When and if we meet, the martinis are on me (some traditions are worth preserving, after all)."

You seem to be on an intellectual dishonesty kick. Maybe time for a martini?

Is that actually the question, though? We are talking DRIVE. That point at which you will do it yourself if your partner isn't interested. What does that have to do with seduction?

The reason for that kind of separation of ideas is that seduction can mean many different things to different people, while the drive means one. Also? Seduction is kinda meaningless when she won't even let you near. I'm not saying that guys aren't sometimes clueless about what things actually turn their spouse on... But when there is an icy wall there, what amount of seduction helps?

Posted by: SwissArmyD
at July 12, 2010 9:13 AM

Fine by me.

There's no "kick" I'm on -- that's who I am.

I yesterday got dressed down by David Buss for my thinking (which wasn't quite as nuanced as his on a particular issue)...and P.S. I asked for the dressing down...e-mailed him and asked him if I'd screwed anything up in my post. I'm very open to criticism, and printed his criticism of my thinking on the blog item to show where I'd erred (and I do think I erred).

After age 45, women get really horny. They cheat on their husbands a lot, in this age bracket.

Posted by: BOTU
at July 12, 2010 10:31 AM

"Is that actually the question, though? We are talking DRIVE."

I was just answering the anecdote that all women stop wanting sex after commitment. The men who say this don't seem to consider that it might be that they're not as romantic as before. Of course, that's not always the case, but I doubt it's a one-sided as it sounds.

Is the study just about masturbation and sexual fantasies or how often women actually have sex? I'd say the former would be all about drive, but the latter could involve a host of other motivations.

Some older women are desperately looking to find another mate before (in their mind) it's "too late". They often have casual sex believing it'll rush things into a relationship. It may not be about the sex itself.

Posted by: lovelysoul
at July 12, 2010 11:20 AM

"They often have casual sex believing it'll rush things into a relationship." LS

good point, that flows well into the rest of the curiosity... does the biological drive later to be intimate have to do with relationships, or with the instinct to procreate? When you speak of seduction and romance, what do those ideas have to do with procreation as an instinct?

That is this strange push/pull of why do we get intimate to begin with, AFTER we have had children? Is the instinct so primal that it doesn't matter what we think? Or is that only for guys. There again, with guys capable of fathering until old age, but women with menopause, our agendas are pretty different anyway. Easily seen with the different ways that LS and I look at this female and male.

I take disinterest as disinterest, but LS appears to be saying there are qualifications: "I'd be interested IF you did the following..." Which is a foreign idea to me...